So what's the deal with landmines?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Do you understand what our policy is on weapons of mass destruction? It sure as hell is not that chemical weapons are not useful in modern warfare, as they most certainly are.

On what do you base that -- both the assertion of the policy position and the assertion of fact?

I have observed the inverse, i.e., the CW are largely considered relics of history in the US and much of the NATO allies. For example, the most recent WMD Commission (bi-partisan) did not even consider CW; they focused solely on nukes and BW.

NB: Please don't confuse questions with challenging statements ... curious *how* and *why* you got to those conclusions.

I had an interesting, as I get to define interesting, conversation a few weeks ago with the South African representative to the OPCW regarding perceptions of relative risk.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[riddler 0]

Quote

because landmines are judged to be of strategic and tactical value.

I'm looking for data that supports that statement - do you have any?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[billvon 3,111]

>1. Landmines do serve a valid military function. The military and this
>administration agrees. Several other country's also agree and have
>also not signed the treaty.

They could serve the same function even if strict limitations were placed on them (i.e. they must deactivate automatically after 12 months, they must be remotely de-armable, they must be able to report armed or disarmed status etc.) Much of the current objection to landmines are the number of children/noncombatants injured and killed by mines that no longer serve any military purpose.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

They could serve the same function even if strict limitations were placed on them (i.e. they must deactivate automatically after 12 months, they must be remotely de-armable, they must be able to report armed or disarmed status etc.) Much of the current objection to landmines are the number of children/noncombatants injured and killed by mines that no longer serve any military purpose.

Yes, that is the main fault and cost of them - they live on forever.

But the approaches you list increase complexity (cost) greatly, and could result in a false sense of safety. A supposedly disarmed mine has to be treated the same way a gun (presumed unloaded or with the safety on) on the table must be - as something that can kill you.

The auto expire would be the best of the options with least drawbacks, but may serve as a supply of parts for someone (VC, going back in time) to easily reuse.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Retired Lt. General Robert G. Gard cites the following alternatives as viable:

1. Area denial bomblets
2. The Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS), a tracked vehicle that can fire a “ripple” of 12 M26 rockets. These cover an area of up to 200,000 sq. m to a range of 32km
3. The Extended Range MLRS, which has a range of 45km.

The above can be used in a war zone, as a direct result of conflict, rather than leaving silent killers in the ground for decades.

They all seem even more indiscriminate in avoiding civilians who might know not to enter that field, but may live next to it. Missiles launched from 10s of kilometers with the parameters to span a wide area - how can you propose that as a substitute?

[billvon 3,111]

>But the approaches you list increase complexity (cost) greatly

Agreed. But it is a cost we can quantify; about 2000 children are killed every year by timed-out mines. What cost per child would be worthwhile?

>and could result in a false sense of safety.

It could indeed. I would argue, though, that a false sense of safety is generally better than a guarantee of deadly risk.

>A supposedly disarmed mine has to be treated the same way a gun
>(presumed unloaded or with the safety on) on the table must be - as
> something that can kill you.

Agreed, although I don't see this as a big issue. Disarmed bombs and missiles (and indeed guns as you note) are currently treated this way by the military.

[Ron 10]

Quote

They could serve the same function even if strict limitations were placed on them

Oh, I agree!

Quote

Much of the current objection to landmines are the number of children/noncombatants injured and killed by mines that no longer serve any military purpose.

Again agree. I recall (maybe incorrectly) that some versions of mines had a self detonate function after X number of years, they blew up... I remember my initial reaction was that that was stupid for them to just detonate. But after seeing what insurgents can do with remnants... I think that may be the best option.

Personally, I'd like mines that could be deactivated with a long difficult to break code broadcast. And that a second message could cause them all to detonate.

I also think that if you lay a mine... you are responsible to clear it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

We don't use chemical weapons in warfare, and we are currently in the process of completely eliminating our stockpile. We've signed a treaty saying we won't use them, and other countries won't either.

All true. Nothing to do with landmines.

Quote

We don't use landmines in modern warfare.

Except in Korea and Gitmo. Gitmo is not warfare, I know, but they're still there.

Quote

So why are we against signing a treaty against them?

Are you even reading what people write or just replying out of boredom?

Quote

If it was a good idea for chemical weapons that we don't use, why is it a bad idea for landmines that we don't use?

The same reason we got rid of napalm use and flamethrowers. It's a different weapon. Chemical weapons are not landmines. Just because we got rid of one weapon does not mean we need to get rid of another.

Do you have anything else to say about landmines or are we going to keep discussing off topic subjects?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[d16842 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you understand what our policy is on weapons of mass destruction? It sure as hell is not that chemical weapons are not useful in modern warfare, as they most certainly are.

On what do you base that -- both the assertion of the policy position and the assertion of fact?

Marg, sorry for the long answer, but it is a major pair of questions.

Chemical weapons are indeed considered relics by the major powers as you describe, thank God. But that is NOT because they don't not have tactical and strategic military value in certain applications, but instead because of how bad they are considered socially & morally. We came to our senses. Also, a large driver in their elimination was just how dangerous they were to store in peacetime.

Chemical weapons certainly had tactical advantages, especially if your foe didn't have them, or protection from them. As best as I can tell, the Soviet war plan against Western Europe included significant use of chemical weapons, especially on our weapons depots there, where the working civilians didn't have good protection. These would soft targets, making it very difficult for us to mate soldiers being flown in with equipment. It makes sense, except that the exchange would have grown out of control.

For a tactical use example, take the Korean DMZ. That is the best example I can think of, or was before the North became a nuclear power. If war broke out there it would be massive, and we would be greatly out-manned, and even out-gunned in some categories, especially artillery. The North Koreans didn't have nearly our capability in terms of chemical agent protection. Like the Soviets, if we used chemical weapons there, on their marshalling areas north of the DMZ, it would at least partially offset their numbers, even if they used them too, for our forces had better protective equipment, at least after 1985 or so. Please note I don't wish for that, no sane person would, but it is senseless to deny their utility. I am glad they are gone.

When the US did away with chemical weapons and stated it had no biological weapons, it reaffirmed the policy and doctrine that if anyone used WMD on America or American forces, it would be met with WMD of our own. They didn't state it explicitly, but since we have only one remaining one, nukes, that would have to be the reply.

But if we didn't have nukes, I really wonder if the US would have gotten rid of its chemical weapons, especially if other nations did have nukes. For that reason I suspect many nations have stockpiles they don't admit to having.

I am very glad that the world came to its senses and gotten rid of the massive stockpiles of chemical weapons.

A side note, there are several commercial chemicals, some shipped all over the nation in railcars, that are just about as deadly as nerve agents. Bhopal, India, and the disaster at the Union Carbide plant there is just one example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

Chemical weapons could be used in a terrorist attack I suppose. Come to think of it they were used in one in Japan in the 80's perhaps. But they can't be massively used as such. And with the major powers having sworn off of them, they are mostly no longer a major world threat. But biological weapons could be a disastrous weapon of terror, if they could initiate a growing cycle of disease. And nukes still remain as a major threat between the large powers. But the growing concern is as a weapon of terror, because of the command and control concerns with the new nuclear powers, who have not experienced the bad side of the learning curve we luckily got through, and perhaps even the weak controls in Russia. Especially now with North Korea, Pakistan, India, and soon to be Iran with them. Hence both nukes and bio being front and center in the report you referenced. .

I really would not be surprised to see Iran take out Tel Aviv in my lifetime. Or one in the US. I suspect the Ft Hood shooter would have happily used one.

Thanks for the reply.

Tom B

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you understand what our policy is on weapons of mass destruction? It sure as hell is not that chemical weapons are not useful in modern warfare, as they most certainly are.

On what do you base that -- both the assertion of the policy position and the assertion of fact?

Marg, sorry for the long answer, but it is a major pair of questions.

Thanks for the reply. Chapters and books have been written on the subject.
I was more curious as to how you got to your thinking as posted above that CW are useful in modern warfare. I’m a bit an iconoclast (or ‘heretic’ depending on how feisty I’m feeling at the moment ) w/r/t the relative threat (i.e., motivation x capability x vulnerability) and risk (i.e., probability x consequence) of CW within the WMD community. Always curious how others get to their assessments.

Quote

Chemical weapons are indeed considered relics by the major powers as you describe, thank God. But that is NOT because they don't not have tactical and strategic military value in certain applications, but instead because of how bad they are considered socially & morally.

Interesting argument. That’s the chemical weapons “taboo” argument or a normative argument. I don’t tend to argue normatives w/r/t policy.

My observation is that the current thinking is driven by a perception that CW are neither a tactical nor strategic threat, e.g., the latest WMD Commission that I cited asserted that along with considerations that there were much better developed countermeasures to CW, the latter which is true to some extent. (And mostly a credit to the US Army Chemical Corps and Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center.) The potential consequence of CW is often minimized, imo. What’s driving – i.e., the underlying ‘how’ and why’ folks come to those conclusions – that perception is the curious part to me.

Quote

When the US did away with chemical weapons and stated it had no biological weapons, it reaffirmed the policy and doctrine that if anyone used WMD on America or American forces, it would be met with WMD of our own. They didn't state it explicitly, but since we have only one remaining one, nukes, that would have to be the reply.

“Calculated Ambiguity” w/r/t responding to a CBW attack was the US policy through the signing off on the February 2002 Nuclear Posture Review and the December 2002 National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. With those policy changes, the ambiguity was clarified. National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD)-14 remains tightly classified, which is thought to deal with nuclear weapons targeting including in retaliation.

A new NPR is currently being undertaken, as required by Congress. Oversight of the NPR (& QDR) is by General James “Hoss” Cartwright, USMC & (Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff). GEN Cartwright was an iconoclast at STRATCOM … have heard different comments on how the move from Nebraska to DC affected that. He’s got a good understanding of nukes.

Quote

But if we didn't have nukes, I really wonder if the US would have gotten rid of its chemical weapons, especially if other nations did have nukes.

I would argue that more strongly: it’s pretty clear that the US would not have given up its offensive CW program were it not for its nuclear deterrent.

Quote

Chemical weapons could be used in a terrorist attack I suppose. Come to think of it they were used in one in Japan in the 80's perhaps.

The Aum Shinrikyo executed at least ten separate chemical terrorism attacks. The most well known was the March 1995 attack on the Tokyo subway with sarin. They also improvised weaponization for generating hydrogen cyanide (including condoms as improvised delivery systems) and synthesized VX, which they used to kill a cult member who left the group (delivered to the back of the neck via syringe drop; only through the GC-Mass Spectrometry w/the detection of sulfur-containing degradation products in the corpse was that recognized.)

Empirically, across the WMD spectrum chemicals looking at data of real incidents the overwhelming -- 76% -- of actual terrorism *use* (excluding hoaxes, pranks, and threats) incidents have involved chemical agents … of one type or another. See attached graphs.

The empirics are recognized, e.g., from the National Academy of Sciences’, Making the Nation Safer: The Role of Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism (2002):

“Chemicals continue to be weapons of choice for terrorist attacks. They are readily available and have the potential to inflict significant casualties (from a few to perhaps many thousands in technically possible, if improbable, high-end attacks). And they have characteristics that make them attractive for deployment against an open society: easily concealed, undetectable at a distance, and visually indistinguishable from materials in everyday use.”

But the rhetoric and perceptions disconnect from those empirics. I speculate it is based on perceived vulnerability and mis-perceptions of technical capability by terrorists (or alternatively mis-perceptions of the ease of some weaponization.) For example, the Aum Shinrikyo with trained scientists, millions in available resources, infrastructure, and a set of laws that minimized (or outright prohibited) police ‘interference’ were unable to successfully obtain, grow, weaponize, or disseminate a biological warfare agent. They failed completely w/Botulinum and made a mess with the vaccine strain (i.e., non-pathogenic) of anthrax (i.e., the Sterne 34F strain). I think that there is an unintended vulnerability that has been created w/r/t the perception of threat and relegation of CW largely to annals of history.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

because landmines are judged to be of strategic and tactical value.

I'm looking for data that supports that statement - do you have any?

Of the top of my head, no, I don't.

Would be curious to see some. Most of the arguments that I have heard are based on scenarios and judgements of capabilities.
Others may have more empirical data.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying